I feel like this might be a stupid question but if so, I'll hopefully get a good answer
I'm considering buying a house and have always thought that a downside of it is that I would have to then take the money I spend on it out of my poker bankroll and sell more action when I play higher stakes which costs me EV. I said that to someone today and they asked me why I had to do that since I still have the value of the asset and could take out a loan against it at a later date if necessary in a worst case scenario. This is assuming that I'm spending a maximum of 20-25% of my net worth on a house.
A couple of things to consider are that:
1) Losing 75-80% of my bankroll is something that would be pretty disastrous anyway and I would be very much trying to avoid that by moving down and selling a lot of action before that point regardless of whether or not I have bought a house.
2) Given how rarely 200/400+ runs, it would have to be a pretty sick bad run to lose that much of my roll.
I can clearly see that it's a terrible idea to spend 90% of your net worth on a house and then continue to play the same stakes since you will very likely run into problems. Is it the case however, that if I am assuming that I am never going to continue playing while losing to the point where I run my bankroll down to nothing, that I can count some (or even all?) of the value of the house as part of my poker bankroll when it is my only non-liquid investment and only accounts for 20-25% of my roll?
It feels like it's perhaps a stupid question since my bankroll rules are so arbitrary anyway, the answer might just be "whatever I feel comfortable with" but is there anything that I'm missing that makes things much more clear cut than I have realised?
Thanks.